g. edward gibson, jr., chair avi wiezel james ernzen...1. summarize twenty years of front end...
TRANSCRIPT
Front End Planning In
The Modern Construction Industry
By
Roberta Patrice Bosfield
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree
Master of Science
Approved April 2012 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee:
G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Chair
Avi Wiezel James Ernzen
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 2012
i
ABSTRACT
Front end planning (FEP) is an essential and valuable process that helps identify
risks early in the capital project planning phases. With effective FEP, risks can
potentially be mitigated through development of detailed scope definition and
subsequent efficient project resource use. The thesis describes the FEP process
that has been developed over the past twenty years by the Construction Industry
Institute (CII). Specifically, it details the FEP tools developed for early project
planning and the data gathered to analyze the tools used within the CII
community. Data from a March 2011 survey are given showing the tools
commonly used, how those tools are used and the common barriers faced that
prohibit successful FEP implementation. The findings from in-depth interviews
are also shared in the thesis. The interviews were used to gather detail responses
from organizations on the implementation of their FEP processes. In total, out of
the 116 CII organizations, 59 completed the survey and over 75 percent of the
respondents used at least one CII tool in their front end planning processes. Of the
59 survey respondents, 12 organizations participated in the in-depth interviews.
The thesis concludes that CII organizations continue to find value in CII FEP
tools due to the increase tool usage. Also the thesis concludes that organizations
must have strong management commitment, smart succession planning and a
standardized planning process to increase the likelihood of successful FEP
strategies.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER
1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
1.1. Research Objective ............................................................................2
1.2. Research Team ...................................................................................3
1.2.1. Team Purpose .................................................................................4
1.3. Structure of Thesis .............................................................................5
2: BACKGROUND .................................................................................................6
2.1. Construction Industry Institute .............................................................6
2.1.1. Front End Planning ........................................................................7
2.2. Literature Review ..................................................................................8
2.2.1. Pre-Project Planning Research .......................................................8
2.2.2. Project Definition Rating Index Industrial .....................................9
2.2.3. Project Team Alignment ..............................................................10
2.2.4. Project Definition Rating Index Building ....................................10
2.2.5. PDRI and Project Risk Management ...........................................11
2.2.6. Federal Facilities Council Study ..................................................11
2.2.7. Front End Planning Survey ..........................................................11
iii
CHAPTER Page
2.2.8. Analysis of FEP Results Using CII’s Benchmarking and Metrics
Database .................................................................................................13
2.2.9. Front End Planning Toolkit .........................................................15
2.2.10. Front End Planning for Renovation/Revamp Projects ...............16
2.2.11. Project Definition Rating Index Infrastructure ..........................17
2.3. Problem Statement and Hypotheses ....................................................18
2.3.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................18
2.3.2 Hypothesis.....................................................................................18
2.4. Summary .............................................................................................18
3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................20
3.1. Overall Research Methodology ..........................................................20
3.2. Front End Planning Short Survey .......................................................21
3.2.1. Survey Instrument Creation .........................................................22
3.2.2. Survey Issued ...............................................................................23
3.2.3. Analysis........................................................................................24
3.3. In-Depth Interview ..............................................................................25
3.3.1. Interview Instrument ....................................................................26
3.3.2. Interview Process .........................................................................27
3.3.3. Analysis........................................................................................28
3.4. Summary .............................................................................................29
4: FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY ANALYSIS ..........................................30
iv
CHAPTER Page
4.1. Survey Respondents ............................................................................30
4.2. FEP Survey Results ............................................................................32
4.2.1. Overall Use of CII FEP Tools ......................................................32
4.2.2. Reasons Why FEP Tools are Not Used .......................................36
4.2.3. PDRI Incorporated into Planning Processes ................................39
4.2.4. Usage Frequency and Project Size ...............................................41
4.2.5. Years Usage .................................................................................43
4.2.6. Effect of Tool Use ........................................................................45
4.2.7. Top PDRI Uses ............................................................................47
4.2.8. Common Barriers .........................................................................48
4.3. Summary .............................................................................................49
5: STRUCTURED IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ....................................................51
5.1. Interview Answers ..............................................................................52
5.1.1. Organization FEP Process ............................................................52
5.1.2. Organization FEP Tools ...............................................................55
5.1.3. Succession Planning .....................................................................57
5.1.4. Organization Alliances .................................................................59
5.1.5. FEP Success Example ..................................................................60
5.1.6. Beneficial FEP Aspects ................................................................61
5.2. Summary .............................................................................................62
6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................63
v
CHAPTER Page
6.1. Conclusions .........................................................................................63
6.2. Recommendations ...............................................................................65
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................66
APPENDIX
A RESEARCH TEAM 268 MEMBERS ...........................................................69
B CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE (CII) ORGANIZATIONS ....72
C FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY ...........................................................75
D IN DEPTH INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT ....................................................79
E FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY ORGANIZATIONS ..........................83
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Survey Submittal ....................................................................................... 24
2. Survey Completion Month ........................................................................ 24
3. In-depth Interview Participants ................................................................. 26
4. FEP Survey 2004 and 2011 Comparison .................................................. 31
5. Survey FEP Tool Usage (N=59), 2011 ..................................................... 33
6. Survey FEP Tool Usage (N=70), 2004 ..................................................... 34
7. FEP Survey Usage by Organization Type (N=46), 2011 ......................... 35
8. FEP Survey Usage by Organization Type (N=43), 2004 ......................... 36
9. Incorporation of PDRI into Company Policy, 2011 ................................. 40
10. Incorporation of PDRI into Company Policy, 2004 ................................. 40
11. PDRI Usage Frequency and Size, 2011 .................................................... 42
12. PDRI Usage Frequency and Size, 2004 .................................................... 42
13. PDRI Years in Use, 2011 .......................................................................... 43
14. PDRI Years in Use, 2004 .......................................................................... 45
15. PDRI Effect, 2011 ..................................................................................... 46
16. PDRI Effect, 2004 ..................................................................................... 46
17. PDRI Top Uses (N=48), 2011 .................................................................. 47
18. PDRI Top Uses (N=40), 2004 .................................................................. 48
19. Top Barriers (N=45), 2011 ....................................................................... 49
20. Interview Organization Description .......................................................... 51
vii
Table Page
21. Year Range of CII Tool Usage (N=12) .................................................... 52
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. RT 268 Breakdown ..................................................................................... 4
2. Front End Planning Gate Phases ................................................................. 8
3. Research Methodology Diagram .............................................................. 21
4. In-Depth Interview Email ......................................................................... 28
5. PDRI Usage Statistics, 2011 ..................................................................... 34
6. Reasons Why FEP Tool is Not Used (N= 43), 2011 ................................ 37
7. Reasons Why FEP Tools are Not Used (N= 24), 2004 ............................ 39
8. PDRI Industrial - Year Usage Distribution, 2011 ..................................... 44
9. PDRI Building - Year Usage Distribution, 2011 ...................................... 44
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990s, the construction research consortium, the
Construction Industry Institute (CII), has looked at many aspects of Front End
Planning (FEP). The term Front End Planning is referred to by other names such
as pre-project planning or front end loading. In 1994, the CII publication,
“Beginning a Project the Right Way” stated that a well-planned project can: (CII
1994)
• reduce total project design and construction costs by as much as 20
percent (versus authorization estimate).
• reduce total project design and construction schedule by as much
as 39 percent (versus authorization estimate).
• improve project predictability in terms of cost, schedule, and
operating performance.
• increase the chance of the project meeting environmental and
social goals.
Past FEP research has helped construction industry organizations identify
risks associated with projects. The research has led to the development of various
tools that are used by numerous organizations (domestically and internationally).
These tools have helped organizations develop the rudiments of a strong front end
planning process.
2
The FEP tools that are pertinent to this thesis are the following:
1. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) (Industrial,
Building & Infrastructure)
2. Front End Planning Toolkit
3. Alignment Thermometer
4. Shutdown/Turnaround Alignment Review (STAR)
The above tools have been shown to help construction organizations in the
various stages of front end planning but most importantly in the project scope
definition stage. When used, the tools help to develop a clear scope definition,
proper team alignment and project risk identification. A result of the construction
planning research has been the increase of industry efficiency in addressing
critical front end planning issues.
1.1. Research Objective
In 2004, Research Team 213 surveyed CII members regarding the use of
front end planning tools (Gibson, Ray, and Lyons 2006). The 2004 survey gave
details about what tools members were using and how they were using the tools.
The survey also gave insight as to reasons why organizations were using the tools
and the specific benefits. Since 2004 no other survey has been created to collect
data on how much the tools are used within the CII community. Also, since the
2004 survey, new tools have been created to help in the project-planning phase.
At the beginning of 2011, CII supported the second phase of Research
Team 268 (RT 268), which includes this author. The first phase of RT 268 was
responsible for the development of the PDRI for Industrial tool in 2010 (CII
3
2011b). The first objective of this research, the second phase of RT268, was to
succinctly summarize the last twenty plus years of CII front end planning research
through a thorough literary review. The second objective was to gather additional
data about the CII FEP tool usage and compare the data to those in 2004. Finally,
the last objective was to conduct interviews after the FEP short survey. The
structured interviews were used to gain more detailed knowledge of an
organization’s implementation process; specifically how the tools are
implemented into the overall FEP strategy for CII members and the challenges
face during the process. The research goals summarized:
1. Summarize twenty years of front end planning research through
thorough literary review.
2. Gather more data on the usage of front end planning tools and compare
to previous research results.
3. Conduct in depth interviews regarding organization planning
implementation strategies.
The purpose of this research is to assess the value of front end planning
through measurement of CII FEP tools within the CII community. The author
believes that organizations find continued value in front end planning if the FEP
organizations utilize the provided planning tools.
1.2. Research Team
For this research endeavor a research team was assembled. Research Team
268 consisted of 18 members including the author. Representatives from various
CII member organizations that participated on the research team
4
included contractors and owners from different industry sectors. The purpose of
having different member organizations was to include various approaches to the
research process. RT 268 included five (5) members from public owner
organizations, two (2) members from private owner organizations, eight (8) from
contractor organizations, two (2) from an academic organization and one (1) from
an industry consulting organization. The team members and corresponding
organization are given in Appendix A.
Figure 1: RT 268 Breakdown
RT 268 was a unique team in the fact that many of the research members
carried over from the previous research effort that developed and assessed the
benefits of the PDRI Infrastructure tool (CII 2011b). Among the 20 members, 10
carried over from the previous research effort. Other new members were involved
in previous CII FEP research over the past 20 years (see Appendix A).
1.2.1. Team Purpose
The team objective was to conclude (for now) the 20 years of front end
planning research within the CII community. For RT 268 there were three
RT 268 (Phase II)
Public Owner (5)
Private Owner (2)
Contractor (8)
Consulting (1)
Academia (2)
5
distinct deliverables at the conclusion of the research process. The deliverables
were:
1. Produce a front end planning overview guidance document
2. Update the FEP Toolkit
3. Produce a research summary report
1.3. Structure of Thesis
This thesis is organized into six chapters. It also includes appendices that
provide information on the FEP short survey and interview instruments, as well as
a detailed list of RT 268 and CII member organizations.
Chapter 1 includes an introduction to the research topic, research
objectives, and the research team. Chapter 2 provides an explanation of the front
end planning process and a literary review of the FEP research to date. The
research hypothesis is also included in Chapter 2. The thesis research
methodology for this study is addressed in Chapter 3. It gives an overview of how
the detailed research steps were conducted. Chapter 4 details the survey data; it
analyzes the 2011 short survey results and compares them to the 2004 survey
results. In Chapter 5 the in-depth structured interviews are described. The chapter
details the answers given to the questions asked in the interviews. Finally, Chapter
6 is a conclusion of the findings of the research and the author’s
recommendations.
6
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND
Since 1991, CII FEP research has helped in defining clear project scopes
and aligning successful project teams. Through the front end planning research
numerous tools have been created. Currently, the most used tool is the PDRI
although the other tools are used extensively. In 2004 data were gathered on the
use of the available tools. However, since the 2004 survey, no FEP tool usage
data have been gathered.
2.1. Construction Industry Institute
From the early 1980s, CII has been a driving force for process
improvement in the construction industry. CII is a research consortium of 126
organizations and is based at the University of Texas at Austin. Its mission is to
“improve the cost effectiveness of the capital facility delivery process and the
competiveness of its member organizations” (Irons and Gibson 2006).
CII has supported many research initiatives, which in turn has improved
the efficiency of the construction industry. For example, CII has led research in
the following areas (CII 2011a):
• Alignment
• Benchmarking
• Change Management
• Constructability
• Dispute Prevention & Resolution
• Front End Planning
7
• Lessons Learned
• Materials Management
• Partnering
• Risk Assessment
• Quality Management
• Team Building
• Zero Accident Techniques
2.1.1. Front End Planning
CII has identified front end planning as a critical element in the
construction industry. Front end planning is described as a process of developing
strategic information to identify risks and decide the resources needed to mitigate
those risks (CII 2006b). The purpose behind the FEP process is to create an
environment very early in the project lifecycle to effectively analyze potential
projects risks. The desired result is to have a project that an organization can
successfully manage.
Figure 2 provides a graphical depiction of the front end planning process
in relation to the project lifecycle (CII 2006b; CII 1999). In an effective FEP
process, the three phases (feasibility, concept and detailed scope) of a project are
performed in order. The consecutive order of the phases is important because
each phase provides important risk mitigation information before the next phase.
Each of the phases is evaluated or “gate checked” before moving to the next phase
as shown by the diamonds in the diagram (0, 1, 2, and 3).
8
Figure 2: Front End Planning Gate Phases
An organization assesses the project resource requirements and project
business objectives in the feasibility phase. In the concept phase, project team
alignment and basic design documents are investigated. For example, crucial
decisions regarding project location, technology, and contract strategy are tackled.
This analysis should produce a plan to define the project scope. An organization
must have an exhaustive plan in the detailed scope phase. To properly execute a
project within the allotted budget and schedule, an organization’s plan should
include a scope definition of critical issues.
2.2. Literature Review
Since the goal of the research was to gather data regarding the front end
planning process and tools that organizations employee, it was necessary to
summarize literature on the use of the FEP tools within the CII community. The
literature review looks at the FEP research over the last 20 years.
2.2.1. Pre-Project Planning Research
The beginning of systematic front end planning research can found in the
early 1990s, where the CII Pre-Project Planning Task Force took on the task of
researching the process of front end planning. In its research efforts, the pre-
2
scope. The detailed scope phase requires an organization to have an in-depth plan, including a high level of scope definition of critical issues in order to successfully execute a propose project within the required budget and schedule.
Figure 1: Front End Planning Gate Phases
Research data has shown that project teams can expect to spend three to five
percent of total project installed cost on front end planning activities, with resulting savings of 10 percent in terms of cost, seven percent for schedule and five percent less in terms of change orders (CII 2006a). FLAT ECONOMIC WORLD
In a “flat world”, organizations must learn how to navigate complex and volatile globalized economic environments. The flat world environments are continuously shifting due to technology advancements and rapid communication (Friedman 2007). To successfully navigate in a flat world, effective management of global economies, political changes, international labor and material markets are essential. In order to successfully compete in this market, construction and engineering firms must manage the associated risks of the flat world while at the same time keeping abreast on local risks. Concerns such as political uncertainty, material shortages, foreign labor disputes and unplanned natural disasters must continuously be monitored by successful organizations.
One way to keep abreast of the uncertainty is through effective pre-construction planning, specifically front end planning. Front end planning can help identify and mitigate risks which in turn will help identify lurking project pitfalls as well as project opportunities. In front end planning an organization has great influence over the success of a project because decisions about high-risk issues can be carefully assessed before a substantial amount of resources are committed.
Since organizations can navigate the dangers of a flat world with extensive planning in the early stages of projects, and with the proven benefits of FEP, one question that arises is why do organizations perform little or no front-end planning on projects in the global environment? FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY From its inception in 1983, the Construction Industry Institute has focused on the improvement of key management processes within the construction and engineering fields (CII 2011). Over the years numerous FEP aspects such as the phase gated process (feasibility, concept and detailed scope), team alignment, risk management tools, and other key FEP factors have been researched. One tool that is used among CII members is the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI). The PDRI tool is offered in three versions: 1) PDRI Industrial Projects
0 FEASIBILITY 1 CONCEPT 2 DETAILED SCOPE 3 DESIGN 4 CONSTRUCTION 5 COMMISSIONING
& STARTUP 6 OPERATIONS
Front End Planning
9
project planning team used the Integration Definition for Function Modeling
(IDEF0), Structured Analysis and Design Technique methodology to outline the
FEP process (Gibson, Kaczmarowski and Lore 1995). In the end the team
concluded four major goals of front end planning: 1) organize for pre-project
planning 2) select project alternative(s), 3) develop a project definition package
and 4) decide whether to proceed with project. The research team also identified
several important principles for successful front end planning. The principles
were planning standardization, owner-driven process, well defined goals, full
understanding of requirements and goals, detailed design to ensure predictability
of costs and schedule and a corporate process that reinforces planning goals (CII
1994; CII 2006b). The Pre-Project Planning Handbook was published as a result
of this project (CII 1995).
2.2.2. Project Definition Rating Index Industrial
The front end planning research continued with The CII Front End
Planning Research Team (RT 113), which was formed to create “effective, simple
and easy-to-use scope definition and alignment tools” (CII 1996). In 1994, the
research team delivered the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) tool for
industrial projects. The tool was created as a method to measure the level of scope
definition. It allows project teams to evaluate the completeness of the project
scope through a comprehensive scope definition element checklist. Checklist
elements are based on task completeness, resulting in a score that can be related to
the associated risk at the particular point in the front end planning process. The
maximum score of the PDRI tool is 1000 points; the lower the score, the
10
more defined the project scope. From the analysis of 40 projects, RT 113 found
that projects with scores lower than 200 were more successful (CII 1996).
2.2.3. Project Team Alignment
Another deliverable from RT 113 was the book, Alignment During Pre-
Project Planning (CII 1997a). Alignment is an important aspect of project
planning and is defined as “ the condition where appropriate project participants
are working within acceptable tolerances to develop and meet a uniformly defined
and understood set of project objectives” (CII 1997a).
The research produced four key categories that must be addressed to
ensure project alignment:
1. Culture
2. Execution Processes
3. Information
4. Project Planning Tools
2.2.4. Project Definition Rating Index Building
The FEP research continued in 1997, when CII supported Research Team
155 (RT 155) in a study to create a tool to be used on building and institutional
construction projects that was similar to the PDRI for Industrial. RT 155 created
and tested the PDRI for Buildings on sample projects (Cho, Furman and Gibson
1999). The analysis of the sampled projects showed a significant difference in
project control variables such as cost and schedule between projects with low
PDRI scores (detailed scope) and projects with higher scores (CII 1999; CII,
11
1997b).
2.2.5. PDRI and Project Risk Management
In 2002, Wang explored the correlation between project performance and
the PDRI score. In the analysis, information was gathered on 140 capital projects
approximately $5 billion in construction costs. A connection between enhanced
project performances and well-defined scope was established through this
research (Wang 2002).
2.2.6. Federal Facilities Council Study
In 2003, the Federal Facilities Council Standing Committee on
Organizational Performance and Management sponsored Technical Report #146.
The report was titled “Starting Smart: Key Practices for Developing Scopes of
Work for Facility Projects”. The report was issued to help public organizations
better define project scopes for federal facilities. It acknowledged that a detailed
front end planning process was essential to a detailed project scope. The research
acknowledged essential practices for effective scope development related to scope
definition. The report also gave an array of delivery systems and contract methods
as derived from CII work (Federal Facilities Council 2003).
2.2.7. Front End Planning Survey
To analyze the use of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) tools,
Research Team 213 surveyed member organizations in 2004 regarding the use of
the PDRI tools (Industrial and Building) (Gibson, Ray and Lyons 2006). At the
time, the main FEP tool available for CII organizations was the PDRI;
12
organizations had been using both PDRI types (the Industrial version had been
published for eight years and the Building version for five years) but there was
limited data detailing the use of the tools. The 2004 survey was the first attempt to
collect data on the implementation of CII FEP tools.
The survey focused on determining the following (Gibson, Ray and Lyons
2006):
1. Number of CII members using the planning tool
2. Whether planning tools were incorporated within the organization’s
FEP process?
3. Project type and size description on which members used the tools.
The study concluded that 61.7 percent of CII organizations used the PDRI
to improve their planning efforts. Most of the organizations stated that the tool
was improving their planning effectiveness. Of the organizations surveyed 61.7
percent were using the PDRI for Industrial Projects. In regards to the PDRI for
Building Projects, 44.7 percent of the population used the tool. The majority of
the organizations surveyed (81.4 percent), used the PDRI as a checklist in the
early project planning stages (CII 2006a).
Some of the research findings of the different PDRI tool uses were
unexpected. For example, several members reported that the PDRI was used to
analyze bidding opportunities. Another surprise was the number of CII members
that modified the PDRI to better fit their needs. Most importantly, whether it was
CII tool or non-CII tool, the majority of organizations confirmed their
13
commitment to using a front end planning tool in the planning process (CII
2006a).
2.2.8. Analysis of FEP Results Using CII’s Benchmarking and
Metrics Database
Using project data from its benchmarking and metrics database, CII
published a report that analyzed front end planning practices. Published in 2006,
the report offered research on FEP aspects including the cost of front end
planning related to total project costs and the effect of good front end planning on
performance metrics. The metrics such as cost growth, change orders, and
schedule growth were analyzed in relation to PDRI scores, Pre-Project Index,
percent design complete and the Alignment Index. Researchers measured the
PDRI usage of the CII member population. Approximately 61 percent used the
PDRI to aid in their front end planning processes (CII 2006a).
The front end planning cost related to total cost analysis was evaluated
based on 395 owner projects and 212 contractor projects from various sectors
such as infrastructure, building, and industrial. For projects greater or equal to $5
million, the mean front end planning cost for owners was 3.4 percent of total cost
and 4.3 percent for contractors. The study concluded that contractors spend more
than owners as a percentage of total cost for all small projects in all sectors. In the
infrastructure sector, owners spend the most as a percentage of total cost on large
projects (greater than $5 million) (CII 2006a).
Comparison of PDRI scores of industrial and building projects to
performance metrics was also performed. There were 237 projects
14
with PDRI scores greater than 200 upon completion of the detailed design phase.
Of these 237 projects, 186 performed poorer (on average) than the mean of the
samples with PDRI scores under 200 (projects with better scope definition). For
industrial projects, the researchers confirmed that the statistical difference in cost
growth factor and schedule performance was significant. When the PDRI was
used, there was a statistical difference in the performance metrics for building
projects (CII 2006a).
The analysis on the percent design complete found that the project sub-
sample of 27 industrial and 21 building projects that were above the median
percent design complete, outperformed the sample below the median percent
design complete on average for cost and schedule performance. For this sample
the median percent design complete was 20 percent. If the percent design
complete was greater than 20 percent, the project cost would decrease by 5.6
percent versus a project estimate at the end of front end planning process. At
authorization for design and construction the cut off value was 20 percent design
complete (CII 2006a).
To examine if the CII Pre-project planning index score has an effect on
performance metrics, the researchers analyzed 676 projects, 609 industrial and 67
building projects. The total project cost of this sample was greater than $36
billion. The index score has a rating from 0 to 10. If a project definition had a
score of 10, it is well-defined. For industrial projects, the research concluded that
the differences in cost, schedule, and change order performance were statistically
significant (CII 2006a).
15
To compare the Alignment Index scores with the performance metrics,
data subsamples from 70 projects were analyzed. The Alignment Index is based
on the Alignment Thermometer, which was created in previous research works
(CII 1997a). The thermometer tool includes 10 questions that has a score range
between 0 and 10. The team is perceived as better aligned if the score is higher.
In this sample, the mean alignment score was 6.5. On average, for projects at the
end of detailed design, sample projects which had an alignment score greater than
the median outperformed projects with scores below the median in all three
performance metrics; costs, schedule and change order performance (CII 2006a).
2.2.9. Front End Planning Toolkit
In 2006, CII’s Research Team 213 developed the Front End Planning
Toolkit. The purpose of the tool was to be a “one stop shop” for the vast amount
of CII FEP knowledge and the available front end planning tools. At the time, the
tools available included: the Pre-Project Planning Handbook; Project Definition
Rating Index, Industrial Projects; Alignment During Pre-Project Planning; and
Project Definition Rating Index, Building Projects (CII 1995; CII 1996; CII
1997a; CII 1999).
In 2009, CII Research Team 242 updated the tools within the Front End
Planning toolkit to clarify methods for using the four available tools. The 2nd
edition of the Alignment During Pre-Project Planning – A Key to Success (CII
2005) was revised based on materials from a CII study funded by the National
Institute for Standards and Technology and the collective knowledge from RT
242 (Howard, Gibson, Whittington and Cui 2009).
16
The 2nd editions of the Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects
and Project Definition Rating Index, Building Projects (CII 2006e; CII 2006d)
were also based on the materials from the CII study funded by the National
Institute for Standards and Technology and input from the research team. The
updates to the PDRI tools resulted in significant updates. Mainly, the updates
eliminated the “yes/no” options from some element definitions, discussed owner
and contractor tool usage, and referenced sustainability and security issues
(Howard, Gibson, Whittington, & Qingbin, 2009).
The FEP Toolkit is strongly linked to the Pre-Project Planning Handbook
(published in 1995), which was archived by the research team. The purpose of
Toolkit was to support the use of front end planning knowledge and increase
consistency in planning to ultimately improve the effectiveness of capital projects.
The Toolkit was developed in the HTML language and can be modified to an
organization’s online website (CII 2006c).
2.2.10. Front End Planning for Renovation/Revamp Projects
In 2009, CII supported Research Team 242 to explore the unique front end
planning topics associated with a subset of renovation and revamp (R&R) projects
known as shutdown/turnaround/outage (STO) projects. The team evaluated 25
case studies totaling over $1.4 billon and performed statistical analysis on project
data from the CII Benchmarking and Metrics database. RT 242 also collected data
from four workshops that focused on front end planning for STO projects (CII
2009).
The research showed that the CII owner’s mean total project volume
17
was $4.6 billion with $1.5 billion of it R&R projects. For CII contractors, the
mean total project revenue was $5.2 billion with $1.5 billion of it R&R projects
(CII 2009).
From its research on R&R projects, RT 242 found the following planning
activities crucial for success:
1. Identify and engage key stakeholders
2. Ensure alignment and conduct teambuilding
3. Follow a defined front end planning process
4. Define critical scope issues and project drivers
5. Define existing conditions
6. Choose contract strategy for project constraints
One major deliverable from this research effort was the creation of the
STAR (Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Review) tool (CII 2009). As a result of
the research and analysis, RT 242 created a tool to give insight, management
guidance and effective communication between teams working together (CII
2009).
2.2.11. Project Definition Rating Index Infrastructure
In 2010, CII’s Research Team 268 (RT 268, Phase I) developed the third
installment of the PDRI tool, called the Project Definition Rating Index-
Infrastructure Projects (CII 2010). After creating the tool, RT 268 tested the tool
on completed projects within three years of the research. Through the research a
significant difference was found regarding average schedule, cost and change
order performance (Bingham et al. 2011).
18
2.3. Problem Statement and Hypotheses
The literature review for this thesis looks at prior FEP research and it
gives an overview of all available CII planning tools. The goal of this
investigation is to gather data regarding the front end planning process and what
tools organizations employee, it was necessary to find literature that was available
on the use of all front end planning tools within the CII community. The
aforementioned tools are pertinent to the front end planning strategy within the
construction industry and therefore data should be collected on their use and
effectiveness.
2.3.1 Problem Statement
The lack of data since the 2004 survey on the use and effectiveness of FEP
tools has led the author to gather current data on all available CII FEP tools.
2.3.2 Hypothesis
Organizations continue to value FEP tools; therefore, there is an increase
in usage of front end planning tools within the CII community since the last FEP
survey was conducted. More organizations in 2011 are using the planning tools
compared to 2004.
2.4. Summary
Research conducted by CII reveals a strong connection between effective
front end planning and improved project success measured by project cost,
schedule and change order growth. Previous research indicates that well
performed planning can reduce costs by as much as 20 percent, decrease project
19
variability and increase the chance of projects successfully meeting goals. The
research indicates a direct correlation between the level of front end planning
effort and project success (CII 1994).
The literature review shows that from the early 1990s, CII member
organizations have incorporated the FEP process into their project cycles. Many
organizations have also adopted the numerous front end planning tools within
their processes. Although much is understood about the positive effects of front
end planning, little is known about the current use of the tools and the
implementation results. Since the 2004 survey, there has been little research on
the actual use of CII front end planning tools.
20
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3 will examine the methodology used in gathering information for
both the qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted in this research effort. A
detailed methodology diagram will also be given.
3.1. Overall Research Methodology
Figure 3 outlines the research methodology for this thesis. The author first
completed a literature review of the front end planning research relevant to the
thesis. After the literature review, the author drafted document instrument for the
short front end planning survey and the structure interviews. Once the author
drafted the instruments, the documents were piloted. Shortly after, the survey
document was distributed to CII members and the interview document was
utilized, after which gather were collected and a report was written.
21
Figure 3: Research Methodology Diagram
3.2. Front End Planning Short Survey
The front end planning survey was a follow up to the CII survey in 2004,
which was the first attempt to collect data on the implementation of CII FEP
tools. This survey was used to answer the question: “what tools are CII members
using?” At the time, the survey only questioned members on two FEP tools: PDRI
Industrial and PDRI Building. In 2004, the Industrial version had been published
for eight years and the Building version for five years but there was limited data
detailing the use of the tools.
One of the goals of this research endeavor was to collect additional data
on the use of front end planning tools in the CII community. The goal was to
Review Literature
Create Instrument Drafts
Pilot Drafts
Issue Survey Conduct Interviews
Synthesize and Analyze Data
Write Report
22
compare data from 2004 to the new data in 2011 and therefore the survey
instruments were similar. In addition, data was to be gathered not only on the two
tools from 2004 but also on the following new tools:
• PDRI Infrastructure
• Front End Planning Toolkit
• Alignment Thermometer
• Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Review (STAR)
At the time of the 2011 survey, there were 116 CII member organizations
(Appendix B). The population for the short survey was the CII member
population of member organizations at that time. By design, no attempts were
made to involve organizations outside of CII and therefore the sample population
does not represent the entire construction industry. However, CII member
organizations are some the most successful and most recognized organizations in
the industry.
3.2.1. Survey Instrument Creation
The front end planning short survey instrument (Appendix C) was created
in February and March of 2011 through a collaborative effort between the author
and RT 268. The author first drafted the new survey instrument based on the 2004
survey document.
The author included questions addressing the additional four tools and
added a question on the common barriers to effective front end planning. There
was also space provided at the end of the survey for additional comments.
23
Afterwards, the survey was reviewed and edited by RT 268. Subsequently, the
survey was piloted by four RT 268 team members and slight changes were made
based on that input. Final changes were made before the surveys were distributed
to CII members at the March 2011 Board of Advisors meeting. The typical
attendee at the Board of Advisors meeting is a senior level executive. This
individual is responsible for managing an organization’s overall capital projects
mission and is knowledgeable of the organization’s front end planning process.
The front end planning survey was available in three different formats, a
hard copy, a portable digital format (PDF) version, and an online version. The
hope was to make the experience very convenient in order to gather as much data
as possible. The goal of the front end planning survey was to receive 70
organization responses. At the time on the survey on spring 2011, there were 116
CII organizations.
With the different formats, the data collection strategy needed to be well
planned. A Microsoft Excel® document was used to store the collected FEP data.
The hard copy and digital surveys needed to be manually keyed into the survey
database. For the online survey results, the data was copied into the Excel®
database.
3.2.2. Survey Issued
CII member organizations were given three opportunities to complete the
front end planning survey. The first opportunity was at the Board of Advisor
meeting in March 2011 in New Jersey. A hard copy of the survey was provided
to member organizations at the meeting. Seventeen surveys were
24
completed and returned at this meeting. Subsequently, member organizations that
did not complete the survey at the meeting or were not present at the meeting
were emailed a PDF survey copy. In total, 10 organizations emailed completed
PDF surveys. The final option was an online survey. Thirty-two member
organizations completed the survey online. Table 1 gives an overview of thee
different methods organizations submitted completed surveys to RT 268.
Table 1: Survey Submittal
Table 2 shows the monthly progress in collecting the 2011 front end
planning surveys.
Table 2: Survey Completion Month
3.2.3. Analysis
Upon the synthesis of these data, the results were analyzed by looking at
both the quantitative and qualitative responses. The author evaluated the
Type NumberHard Copy (Board of Advisor Meeting) 17Digital (Emailed PDF) 10Online (CII Survey Website) 32
Total 59
Month Completed NumberMarch 17April 0May 21June 21
Total 59
25
descriptive statistics and used frequencies when assessing the use of the six
different tools. A mean calculation was used in the examination of the years of
use for the PDRI tools. Also, pattern matching was used to identify common
themes in the qualitative answers in the survey. Results of the updated survey
were compared to the 2004 survey results in order to assess the increase of FEP
tools usage. The complete analysis of the 2011 FEP survey results can be found in
Chapter 4. The chapter also analyzes the 2011 survey in relation to the 2004
survey.
3.3. In-Depth Interview
The in-depth interviews gave an opportunity for further analysis on the use
of the front end planning tools, as well as implementation strategies. The short
survey could only “scratch the surface” of the different front end planning
strategies within the CII community. Since there are many large and complex
organizations within the CII community, it would have been very difficult to
initially ask for a 60 minute long interview instead of a short survey. The short
survey gives insight and a snapshot into what organizations were doing; however,
to gain implementation details, more in-depth research was needed. The in-depth
interview was developed for the middle to upper manager. Typically this
individual has a limited amount of time but an hour-long interview would not
have been a burdensome commitment.
The purpose of the in-depth interview was to engage the organization in a
conversation regarding their front end planning strategy. It was imperative to
cover all the topics in the interview. However, since the interview was
26
qualitative in nature, it was important to allow the organization representatives to
speak freely about the process.
Organizations that volunteered for a follow up interview through the FEP
short survey in the spring of 2011 were contacted regarding the interview. A total
of 19 organizations volunteered to share more information regarding their front
end planning process.
These organizations were contacted by the author and in the end 12
organizations (15 individuals) or over 10 percent of the 116 CII members were
interviewed. The interviews took place from mid September 2011 to February
2012. Table 3 details the organizations that participated in the in-depth interview
process.
Table 3: In-depth Interview Participants
3.3.1. Interview Instrument
After analyzing the responses to the short survey, the author identified
potential topics for the structured interviews. The topics were FEP
OrganizationOrganization
Type DateInterview
Type# of
Interviewees
A Contractor September-11 Telephone 3B Owner September-11 Telephone 1C Owner September-11 Telephone 1D Owner October-11 Telephone 1E Contractor October-11 Telephone 1F Contractor October-11 Telephone 1G Owner November-11 Telephone 1H Contractor December-11 In-Person 1I Owner January-12 In-Person 1J Owner January-12 Telephone 2K Owner January-12 Telephone 1L Contractor February-12 Telephone 1Total 15
27
process, FEP tools, succession planning, and alliance planning. In addition, the
author thought it was crucial to ask about FEP process examples and planning
aspects interviewees thought were most important.
A structured set of questions was drafted based on the issues the author
felt were important to the study based on the responses from the short front end
planning survey. The list was vetted by RT 268 and then edited. The interview
instrument is provided in Appendix D. Once the document was completed, the
final was piloted in the first interview. The author updated the instrument once
again based on the initial interview then continued to use the final document for
the remaining interviews.
3.3.2. Interview Process
Unlike the survey, the interviews were conducted over the telephone or in
person. The author communicated with the organization as to interview time
opportunities. Since the different contacts for the organizations were both
domestic and international, there was no standard time slot for the interviews. The
interviewees were from the countries; the United States, Canada and England.
The most challenging aspect of the in-depth interview was time scheduling. Since
the interviews were with upper management individuals, sometimes scheduling
was difficult. Below is the email that was the author sent to the organizations:
28
Figure 4: In-Depth Interview Email
3.3.3. Analysis
The analysis for data collected from the structured interviews was
qualitative in nature. Once the case studies were completed, the data was
transcribed and organized. Since case studies are sometime difficult to measure,
pattern-matching was the principal mode of analysis of the in-depth interviews.
Based on Yin’s explanation-building concept, the analysis details the common
links or themes within the twelve interviews (Yin 1994).
Dear “Organization” This past summer your organization completed a survey on the use of Front End Planning (FEP) tools in the CII community. From the completed survey, your organization indicated that it was willing to share success stories regarding implementation of FEP tools. Our research team would like to know if you or someone in your organization would be willing to participant in a follow up telephone interview? The purpose of the telephone interview is to ask detailed questions about use of FEP tools and also on what is required to implement a successful FEP process. The interview should last no more than one hour. If you would like to participate in the follow up interview, please let us know and we will contact you or your representative to schedule a time for the interview. Once scheduled, a reminder will be sent two days before the interview time with a list of topics that will be covered. Once again, we would like to thank you ahead of time for your participation. If there are questions please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, Roberta Bosfield CII Graduate Research Assistant Arizona State University
29
The complete analysis of the in-depth interview results can be found in
Chapter 5. The chapter covers the responses to the questions; common themes
and recommendations based on interview responses.
3.4. Summary
In summary, all organization respondents of the short survey and in-depth
interview were volunteers from the CII community. The data collection
instruments were both reviewed and piloted by RT 268 after the author drafted the
documents. Like many other research efforts, there are limitations with the data
from this methodology. First, the organizations that completed the initial 2004
FEP survey were not the same organizations in the 2011 survey. Another
limitation is the “convenience” sample. Since all organization respondents were
volunteers, this sample population cannot represent the entire construction
industry. Apart from the limitations, the collected data is still useful for its
original intended purpose.
30
CHAPTER 4: FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY ANALYSIS
The survey results for both the 2011 and 2004 are reported, analyzed, and
compared in this chapter.
4.1. Survey Respondents
At the time of the 2004 survey, there were 92 CII member organizations
eligible for the front end planning survey. These included 47 owners (51.1
percent) and 45 contractors (48.9 percent) in the total population. Of the 92
organizations, 70 organizations responded, which was a response rate of 76.1
percent. Thirty-six owners (51.4 percent) and 34 contractors (48.6) responded to
the survey. In the end, of the 70 respondents, 43 organizations (61.4 percent) used
at least one CII front end planning tool in 2004.
Looking at the 2011 survey population, there were 116 CII member
organizations (Appendix E). Of the 116 organizations, there were 56 owners (48.3
percent) and 60 contractors (51.7 percent). Fifty-nine organizations responded to
the 2011 survey, a response rate of 50.9 percent. Of the 59 respondents, there
were 32 owners (54.2 percent) and 27 contractors (45.8 percent). In the 2011
survey, of the 59 respondents, 46 organizations (78.0 percent) used at least one
CII front end planning tool.
To compare, the respondent percentages of owners and contractors are
similar between 2004 and 2011. There were no significant changes in the
population make up of owners and contractors. However, in looking at the survey
response rate, the 2011 rate was far lower than that in 2004. Even though there
were more members in 2011, there were 11 less survey respondents. Yet,
31
in 2011, a greater percentage of respondents used at least one tool (78.0 percent)
compared to the percentage (61.4 percent) in 2004. Table 4 gives population and
response details of the two survey populations.
Table 4: FEP Survey 2004 and 2011 Comparison
In conclusion, there were more survey participants in 2004 compared to
2011 but the tool usage was slightly higher among the 2011 respondents. One
issue that also should be addressed is the organization overlap between both
surveys. Of the 2011 survey respondents (59), 39 respondent organizations were
part of the overall survey population in 2004. The remaining 20 respondent
organizations did not complete the 2004 survey. Therefore, the survey
respondents for 2004 and 2011 are not the same.
In summary, the two populations are comparable when looking at the
owner and contractor metrics; however, care should be given when extrapolating
since the specific respondent organizations for the 2004 and 2011 surveys are
different.
2004 2011
CII Total Organization Population 92 116Survey Respondents 70 59Percentage of CII Members 76.1% 50.9%Owners 36 32Contractors 34 27Respondents # and % used at least one tool 43 or 61.4% 46 or 78.0%Respondents Used None 27 15
Year of Survey
32
4.2. FEP Survey Results
4.2.1. Overall Use of CII FEP Tools
In the 2011 survey, questions one though six, measured the overall usage
of the FEP tools. Respondents had the answer options: “Yes”, “No”, or “Not
Applicable”. An organization could respond “Not Applicable” if the tool did not
apply to its organization work process. The questions asked the respondent
whether their organization uses the PDRI for Industrial Projects, PDRI for
Building Projects, PDRI for Infrastructure Projects, Alignment Thermometer,
Front End Planning Toolkit and the Shutdown/Turnaround Alignment Review
(STAR) tools, respectfully. In the 2004 survey, the overall usage was only
measured for the PDRI for Industrial Projects and PDRI for Building Projects
tools.
In Table 5, the tool usage results for questions one through six in the 2011
survey are given. For the PDRI for Industrial Projects tool, when applicable, there
were 41 out of 53 organizations that used the tool or 77.4 percent. Eighteen out of
37 respondents or 48.6 percent used the PDRI for Building Projects tool when
applicable. For the relatively new PDRI for Infrastructure Projects tool (which
was published in 2010), 12 out of 36 respondents or 33.3 percent used the tool
when applicable. Fifty-three respondents indicated the Alignment Thermometer
was applicable to their organization and 16 or 30.2 percent used the tool. For the
Front End Planning tool, 53 respondents also indicated the tool was applicable
and 24 organizations or 45.3 percent used the tool. When applicable, 7 of 50
organizations or 14.0 percent used the STAR tool.
33
Table 5: Survey FEP Tool Usage (N=59), 2011
Of the 59 total respondents in 2011, 44 organizations used at least one
PDRI tool within the FEP process. Figure 5 shows that 21 respondents or 47.7
percent only used the PDRI Industrial tool, and three or 6.8 percent only used the
PDRI Buildings tool within the planning process. There were no respondents that
only used the PDRI Infrastructure tool. There were eight respondents or 18.2
percent that used both the PDRI Industrial and Buildings tools. Five respondents
or 11.4 percent used both the PDRI Industrial and Infrastructure tools within the
FEP process. There were no respondents that used both the PDRI Buildings and
Infrastructure tools. Finally, there were seven or 15.9 percent respondents that
used all three tools within the FEP process.
FEP Tool Type Yes No N/A Total
% Using when
applicable
PDRI for Industrial Projects 41 12 6 59 77.4%PDRI for Building Projects 18 19 22 59 48.6%
Subtotal 59 31 28 118 65.6%
PDRI for Infrastructure Projects 12 24 23 59 33.3%Alignment Thermometer 16 37 6 59 30.2%Front End Planning Toolkit 24 29 6 59 45.3%Shutdown/Turnaround Alignment Review (STAR) 7 43 9 59 14.0%
Subtotal 59 133 44 236 30.7%
34
Figure 5: PDRI Usage Statistics, 2011
Table 6 shows the overall usage results for the PDRI for Industrial
Projects and PDRI for Building Projects from 2004. Recall that these two tools
were the only tools measure evaluated in 2004. The PDRI for Industrial Project
was used by 37 respondents or 61.7 percent when applicable. When applicable, 21
respondents or 44.7 percent used PDRI for Building Projects.
Table 6: Survey FEP Tool Usage (N=70), 2004
When comparing the PDRI for Industrial Projects tool use between 2004
and 2011, the number of organizations using the tool increased. Also, the usage
rate of 2011 was higher than that of 2004. At a high level, it can be said that the
usage of the PDRI for Industrial Projects has increased. When comparing the
PDRI for Building Projects, there were three less organizations using the tool than
Industrial
Building Infrastructure
21
3
8 5 7
None
None
FEP Tool Type Yes No N/A Total
% Using when
applicable
PDRI for Industrial Projects 37 23 10 70 61.7%PDRI for Building Projects 21 26 23 70 44.7%
Subtotal 58 49 33 140 54.2%
35
in 2011 but the usage rate is slightly higher. Of the newly measured tools, The
FEP Toolkit had the greatest usage rate. It was followed by the PDRI
Infrastructure, the Alignment Thermometer and the STAR tools, respectively.
Another way of looking at the overall tool usage is to segregate the data by
the owner and contractor breakout. Table 7 describes use of tools for owners and
contractors in the 2011 survey. Similar to Table 5, there are two subtotals. The
first subtotal corresponds to the PDRI Industrial and Building tools, which were
surveyed in 2004. The second subtotal is that for the remaining four tools (PDRI
for Infrastructure Projects, Alignment Thermometer, Front End Planning Toolkit
and STAR).
Of the 20 contractor respondents for the PDRI Industrial and Building
tools, 66.7 percent used the tools when applicable and owners used the tools 64.8
percent of the time when applicable in the planning process. Regarding the PDRI
for Infrastructure Projects, Alignment Thermometer, Front End Planning Toolkit
and STAR tools, when applicable contractors used the tools 36.6 percent of the
time and owners used the tools 26.4 percent when applicable.
Table 7: FEP Survey Usage by Organization Type (N=46), 2011
Organization Yes No N/A Total
% Using when
applicable
Contractor (N=20) 24 12 18 54 66.7%Owner (N=26) 35 19 10 64 64.8%
Subtotal (PDRI Industrial and Building) 59 31 28 118 65.6%
Contractor (N=20) 30 52 26 108 36.6%Owner (N=26) 29 81 18 128 26.4%
Subtotal (Other Tools) 59 133 44 236 30.7%
36
Like the previous table, Table 8 shows the tool usage by contractor and
owner in the 2004 survey results. When applicable 58.1 percent of the contractor
organizations used a version of the PDRI Industrial and Building tools compared
to 69.4 percent of the owner organizations.
Table 8: FEP Survey Usage by Organization Type (N=43), 2004
Compared to 2004 results, contractors in 2011 are using the PDRI
Industrial and Building tools more often when applicable and owners are using
the tools slightly less than that of 2004. It could be possible that owners have
placed more of the front end planning responsibility on the contractors as part of
the contract agreement. The contractor and owner usage of the PDRI for
Infrastructure Projects, Alignment Thermometer, Front End Planning Toolkit and
STAR tools are significantly less than that of the 2011 usage rates of the PDRI
Industrial and Building tools.
At a high level, there are some changes; however, it must be noted that the
respondent organizations are not the same for both surveys.
4.2.2. Reasons Why FEP Tools are Not Used
To address the “No” and “Not Applicable” answers to the tool usages
questions, the seventh question in the 2011 survey is an open question asking the
organization why it was not using any of the front end planning tools. Figure
Organization Yes No N/A Total
% Using when
applicable
Contractor (N=18) 18 13 3 34 58.1%Owner (N=25) 25 11 0 36 69.4%
37
6 depicts the common reasons why organizations were not using the front end
planning tools.
Of the 59 organization respondents, 43 organizations had responded to the
question. Fourteen of the 43 respondents or 33 percent mentioned that their
organizations were not familiar with the tools. Thirteen of the 43 organizations or
30 percent commented on the use of other front end planning tools. Some
organizations use outside planning tools such as Independent Project Analysis
(IPA) or have their own in house planning tools in use. Three of the 43 or seven
percent respondents mentioned that their organizations will soon implement a tool
and another three respondents (seven percent) indicated that the tools were
difficult to use. Ten of the respondents, 23 percent, listed other reasons for not
using the tools.
Figure 6: Reasons Why FEP Tool is Not Used (N= 43), 2011
Not Familiar 14
Different Tools 13
Other 10
Implementing Soon
3
Difficult To Use 3
REASONS WHY IT IS NOT USED
38
Below are related comments from 2011 respondents why the tools were not used.
• We are new to CII this year and have not yet used any of the tools. - Owner
• “ We have not used the STAR tool because we are not familiar with its
application. We are coming up to speed on the application and we will apply the tool as part of our project delivery” - Owner
• “We use a proven methodology for front end planning that fits our business model. While we do not specifically use the named PDRI or FEP tools, our standard process includes the use of standard product schedule templates –from Tender to Contract Close.” - Contractor
The following comments were made about the difficulty of tool usage.
• “We tried using PDRI for industrial projects years ago, but it was very hard to translate internal deliverables and nomenclature. Also many of the categories in the PDRI aren't applicable for many of our projects as they simply respond to RFQ's from others. I do want to try to re-invigorate PDRI in the near future, however.” - Owner
• “Star Tool is very complex.” - Contractor
• “Well do small projects $1 million - $50 million and the PDRIs are too complex. When we get time we're going to simplify the PDRI Industrial for our use.” - Contractor
In 2004, Of the 24 organizations that responded to this question, 13 of the
organizations or 54 percent were not using the CII PDRI tools mainly because the
use of other tools (Figure 7). Respondents either used internal tools or external
tools such as the IPA. Seven of the respondents or 29 percent were not familiar
with the tools and four organizations or 17 percent have other reasons for not
employing the PDRI tools.
39
Figure 7: Reasons Why FEP Tools are Not Used (N= 24), 2004
To conclude, organizations do not employee some of the FEP tools
because of their use of other non-CII front end planning tools. Also, compared to
2004, organizations in 2011 are still unfamiliar with some of the CII FEP tools.
Some organizations have even indicated that the tools are complex and it is
difficult to successfully implement into their organizations.
4.2.3. PDRI Incorporated into Planning Processes
To further understand how the PDRI tools were are in budgetary process
of an organizations planning process, the eighth question of the 2011 front end
planning survey focused on the incorporation of the PDRI tools in the planning
process. The question specifically asked if the PDRI is part of the budgetary
approval process for capital projects. Of the 59 total respondents, 55 answered the
question. Of this total, 23 organizations or 41.8 percent answered, “Yes” to the
question as shown in Table 9.
Another Tool 13
Not Familiar/Too New
7
Other 4
REASONS WHY IT IS NOT USED
40
Table 9: Incorporation of PDRI into Company Policy, 2011
Below are selected responses from organizations on the question on the PDRI use
in the budgetary process.
• “PDRI has been implemented for several years and is used extensively in the company as a Front End Planning tool, but not as a budgetary stage gate - Owner
• “Usage is still on an individual project / project manager basis. We
have not institutionalized these front end planning tools across (company name). We are working towards that now (our standard process, procedures and tools).” - Contractor
• “Use it as an evaluator to pass our decision review board before
capital approval” - Owner
Table 10 shows the results to PDRI incorporation in 2004. Of the 40
responses, 25 organizations or 62.5 percent had used the PDRI apart of their
budgetary approval process. In addition below are comments why some
organizations do not incorporate the PDRI as apart of the budget approval process
(CII 2006a).
• “PDRI is used sporadically based on individuals experiences as well as client requirements / requests.” - Contractor
• At this time PDRI is a reference tool. It has not necessarily been
integrated fully into our practices. We have other tools we use as well. – Contractor
• PDRI is bundled with PDRI assistance as a Value-Add service.
Typically it is well received by those who have used it. – Contractor Table 10: Incorporation of PDRI into Company Policy, 2004
Yes No Total % YesIncorporated 23 32 55 41.8%
41
A conclusion of the analysis and selected quotes is that the PDRI is not as
extensively used to help with the budget decision today as in 2004. However,
organizations still find value when using the PDRI tools in the front end planning
process.
4.2.4. Usage Frequency and Project Size
To get a more detailed look at the PDRI tools in the FEP process,
questions nine through eleven of the 2011 survey asked organizations how often
are the PDRI tools used in the detailed scope phase of a construction projects. CII
members were also asked to give a size estimate of those projects (Large, Medium
or Small). The purpose of the question was to understand when organizations
thought the PDRI added value to the planning process. The results from the 2011
survey are located in 11.
Of the 40 respondents for the PDRI Industrial tool, 7 used the tool on all
projects, 21 used the tools on some projects and 12 used the tools on few projects.
In other words, 70 percent of the respondents used the PDRI Industrial tools on
some or all of their projects of various project sizes.
Of respondents that used the PDRI Building tool, 12 of 17 used the tool on
some of the projects or over 70 percent and the sizes of the projects were mostly
medium and large projects. For the relatively new PDRI Infrastructure tool, 2
used the tool on all projects, 5 used the tool on some projects and 4 used the tool
Yes No Total % YesIncorporated 25 15 40 62.5%
42
on selected projects. However, the respondents mainly used the tool on large
projects.
Table 11: PDRI Usage Frequency and Size, 2011
In Table 12, the results for the 2004 PDRI usage frequency and project
size are given. Of the respondents that used the PDRI Industrial tool, 9 used the
tool on all projects, 20 used the tool on some projects and 8 used the tool
selectively. The respondents used the tools more so on medium and large
projects. For the PDRI Building tool, there was almost an equal amount of
organizations that used the tool on all, some and few projects. These organizations
also evenly used the tools on all project size types.
Table 12: PDRI Usage Frequency and Size, 2004
When looking at the data from 2011 and 2004 on the PDRI project use and
size, today organizations continue to use the PDRI Industrial tool on some or all
projects mainly on large and medium size projects. In regards for the PDRI
Building tool, fewer organizations are using the tools selectively. These
All SomeFew or Select
Large (>$20M)
Medium ($5M - $20M)
Small (<
$5M)
PDRI for Industrial Projects (N=40) 7 21 12 28 20 20PDRI for Building Projects (N=17) 2 12 3 14 11 6PDRI for Infrastructure Projects (N=11) 2 5 4 9 4 1
Usage on Projects Size of Projects
All SomeFew or Select
Large (> $20
million)
Medium ($5 - $20 million)
Small (< $5
million)
PDRI for Industrial Projects (N=37) 9 20 8 30 26 21PDRI for Building Projects (N=21) 6 7 8 13 14 11
Usage on Projects Size of Projects
43
organizations find value to the PDRI Building tool and are using the tool more
often.
4.2.5. Years Usage
Another way to measure value of the front end planning tools is through a
measurement of years of use. Shown in Table 13 are the average years of use
from the 2011 survey of organizational use for the PDRI Industrial and Building
tools are 5.0 and 4.7 respectfully. The PDRI for Infrastructure projects was
released in late 2010 therefore the average years in use was not asked in the
survey.
Table 13: PDRI Years in Use, 2011
Figures 8 and 9 show the distribution of year usage for the PDRI Industrial
and Building tools. The two figures are shown to describe the range of use among
respondents in order to better understand the 2011 average years in Table 14.
Figure 8 details the 38 respondents that comprise the 5.0 year average for the
PDRI Industrial tool. Of the 38 respondents, 28 (73.7 percent) have used the tool
for five or less years. Ten (26.3 percent) of the 38 respondents use the tool for
more than five years.
# of Years (Avg.)
PDRI for Industrial Projects 5.0PDRI for Building Projects 4.7PDRI for Infrastructure Projects NA
44
Figure 8: PDRI Industrial - Year Usage Distribution, 2011
Recall that the average year of use for the PDRI Building tool was 4.7
years. According to Figure 9, of the 16 respondents, 12 (75 percent) of the
organization have used the tool for five years of less. Three (18.8 percent) of the
respondents have used the tool for either seven or eight years. There is one
respondent that used the tool for fifteen years.
Figure 9: PDRI Building - Year Usage Distribution, 2011
According to Table 14, in 2004 the average use of for the PDRI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 15 20
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
Number of Years
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 15
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
Number of Years
45
Industrial and Building tools are 4.3 and 2.7 respectfully.
Table 14: PDRI Years in Use, 2004
A comparison of 2011 and 2004 result indicates that the average years of
use is higher for the PDRI Industrial and Building tools. The Industrial tool is
slightly higher by 0.7 years and the Building is much higher by 2.0 years. With a
difference of seven years between the surveys, if organizations had continued to
find value in the PDRI tools since 2004, one would expect the average years to be
higher. To conclude there are two possible reasons for the small increase of
average years. The first reason, which has been previously noted, being that
different organizations have responded to both surveys. The second being the ebb
and flow of the use of the tools within an organization. The author believes this is
mostly due to a change in leadership in an organization. The third reason could be
because of poor historical record-keeping.
4.2.6. Effect of Tool Use
Respondent organizations that used the PDRI tools were also asked if the
use of the tools has had a positive effect, negative effect, or no effect on their
planning process effectiveness. If organizations have a positive effect, it could
give an indication of the value that the FEP tool provides. Of the 44 organizations
that used at least one PDRI the tool, 41 organizations responded to this specific
# of Years (Avg.)
PDRI for Industrial Projects 4.3PDRI for Building Projects 2.7
46
question. Of the 41 respondents, there were 37 organizations or 90.2 percent that
found the PDRI tools positive, one organization or 2.4 percent found that the
PDRI tools had little or no effect, and there were three organizations or 7.3
percent that found one of the PDRI tools had a positive effect while another PDRI
tool had little or no effect.
Specifically regarding the PDRI Industrial tool, of the 40 respondents, 39
found that the tool had a positive effect. For the PDRI Building tool, 15 of the 17
respondents found the tool to have a positive effect. The overwhelming positive
trend continued with the PDRI Infrastructure tool. Ten of the 11 found the tool to
have a positive effect. Table 15 gives the details for the 2011 responses.
Table 15: PDRI Effect, 2011
When looking at the 2004 PDRI effects, organizations found the tools to
have an overall positive effect. For the PDRI Industrial tool, 34 of the 37
respondents found the tool had a positive effect in the planning stages. Of the 16
respondents, 14 found the PDRI Building tool had a positive effect. The results
are shown in Table 16.
Table 16: PDRI Effect, 2004
Positive NegativeLittle or
None
PDRI for Industrial Projects 39 1PDRI for Building Projects 15 2PDRI for Infrastructure Projects 10 1
Effect
47
In conclusion, in 2011 organizations continued to find that the PDRI tools
had an overwhelming positive effect in the front end planning process. Even
though there were a few organizations that recognized little or no effect in their
planning process, overall the experience is still very positive.
4.2.7. Top PDRI Uses
Question 12 in the 2011 survey asked organizations for their top uses of
the PDRI tools. Respondents were give nine choices and of the nine, Table 17
lists the top five. Organizations use the PDRI as a checklist as the top response.
Also, many of the organizations use the tool as a “gate” check and in conjunction
with other front end planning tools. Organizations tend the use the PDRI with
help of a facilitator outside the project team. This is very helpful for keeping
planning team objectives. Finally, organizations tend to use the PDRI to measure
the performance of their FEP processes.
Table 17: PDRI Top Uses (N=48), 2011
In 2004, most organizations also used the PDRI tools as a checklist in
Positive NegativeLittle or
None
PDRI for Industrial Projects 34 2PDRI for Building Projects 14 2
Effect
Top 5 PDRI UsesResponse Fequency
1. As a checklist in early project development 312. As a “gate” check before moving to the next project phase 303. In conjunction with other front end planning measurement methods (i.e., IPA, internal measures, etc.) 294. With the help of a facilitator who is outside the project team 275. As a means of measuring or benchmarking front end planning process performance 25
48
the early development stage. Also most of the respondents used the PDRI as a
“gate” checklist, in conjunction with other FEP methods and as a means of
benchmarking the planning process performance. According to Table 18, 2004
respondents also found the PDRI valuable when it was used as an audit tool.
Table 18: PDRI Top Uses (N=40), 2004
A conclusion of the analysis, organizations continue to value the PDRI
when it used as a checklist in the early development stages and as a “gate check”.
Currently, organizations still continue to find the PDRI tool valuable when it used
with other planning methods and it measures the FEP process performance.
However, organizations are using the tool more as an audit tool today than in
2004.
4.2.8. Common Barriers
In the final question in the 2011 FEP survey, organizations were asked to
identify common barriers that prevented effective use of CII FEP tools. Table 19
lists the lack of knowledge of the available CII FEP tools as the most common
barrier among organizations. The second most common barrier was the use of
other existing planning methods already embedded in the organizations, with 18
Top 5 PDRI UsesResponse Fequency
1. As a checklist in early project development 352. As a “gate” check before moving to the next project phase 313. In conjunction with other front end planning measurement methods (i.e., IPA, internal measures, etc.) 314. As a means of measuring or benchmarking front end planning process performance 305. As an audit tool 18
49
responses. Even though this is a barrier to use of CII FEP tools, it is great to see
that organizations are still planning no matter what tool is being used. (There is
still a planning process within these organizations; however, the success of those
processes is unknown.) The lack of resources (time, money, etc.) is the third most
common barrier that hinders CII tool usage. The fourth barrier is the lack of
trained facilitators. Without the right personnel to help facilitate, organizations
will usually have difficulty successfully using the tools. The lack of facilitators
can hinder the use of CII tools but that barrier can easily be overcome if
organizations commit to training. The last barrier is lack of management
commitment. It is extremely difficult for any organization to take on new tasks
and goals without the support of top management. Without the “buy-in” of
leadership a front end planning process can never win.
Table 19: Top Barriers (N=45), 2011
4.3. Summary
In conclusion, the purpose of the 2011 front-end planning survey was to
gather more data on the use of FEP tools within the CII community. Fifty-nine
organizations responded to the survey. Of the 59 organizations, 46 organizations
use at least one CII FEP tool. In comparing the results of the 2011 survey to the
2004 survey, the PDRI tools are still the most widely used tools within the CII
Top BarriersResponse Fequency
1. Knowledge or understanding, not familiar 202. Other existing processes or alternate methods for planning 183. Resources, including time or money 154. Lack of trained facilitators 145. Lack of management commitment 13
50
community. Many organizations use the PDRI tool on at least some of their
projects ranging in size from small to large and indicate that there is an
overwhelming positive effect of tool use on their projects.
51
CHAPTER 5: STRUCTURED IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
The purpose for the in-depth interviews was to further investigate the FEP
process, FEP tools and look for key implementation issues. As previously
described, of 59 organizations that completed the short front end planning survey,
12 organizations volunteered to thoroughly describe their planning processes
through an interview. These organizations gave great insight into what a typical
owner or contractor organization experiences during the front end planning
process. The typical interviewee was a manager or director of a construction,
engineering or facilities division within the respective organization. The
interviewees had on average twenty-plus years of industry experience and held an
extremely influential position within the organization.
The 12 organizations were a mix of owners and contractors from various
industry sectors. Some of the group sectors included oil and gas, energy, natural
gas, infrastructure and others. The annual revenue and employee count for the
group is widely distributed. Compared to the CII population of 116, the sample
size of 12 organizations is relatively small (less than 10 percent). However, the
author feels that the lessons learned in these interviews can still be utilized in
construction organizations across the industry. Table 20 and 21 describes the CII
organizations interviewed.
Table 20: Interview Organization Description
52
Table 21: Year Range of CII Tool Usage (N=12)
The document used in the interviews (see Appendix D) was created to
help foster conversation as well as seek answers and collect data. Organizations
were probed on specific topics and given follow-up questions. Once again, the
main interview topics addressed were the FEP process, FEP tools, succession
planning and alliances. Organizations were also asked to describe specific
examples and any important aspects they thought were crucial to the success of
the FEP process. Questions were structured in order to investigate reasons behind
the behavior of organizations.
5.1. Interview Answers
The following sections describe each of the main thematic areas
investigated in the interviews.
5.1.1. Organization FEP Process
OrganizationOrganization
Type Revenue Project Type Employees
A Contractor $9.2B Oil & Gas, Manufactoring, Minning 47,000B Owner $9.1B Energy, Natural Gas 4,400C Owner $5.4B Nuclear 12,800D Owner $297B Oil & Gas 80,000E Contractor $6.3B Energy, Infrastructure, Nuclear, 23, 500F Contractor NA Infrastructure, Energy, Manufacturing NAG Owner $189B Oil & Gas 29,800H Contractor NA Oil & Gas NAI Public Owner $273M Infrastructure and Building NAJ Public Owner $3.4B Infrastructure and Building NAK Public Owner NA Infrastructure and Building NAL Contractor NA Infrastructure and Building NA
Years 0-3 Years 3- 6 Years 6-10 Years 10+
3 3 5 1
53
In the first topic of the interview, organizations were asked to generally
describe their front end planning processes for a project. Specifically, what are the
different stages CII planning practices come into effect (feasibility, concept,
design, etc.); who is responsible for tracking the planning process; and what
requirements are necessary to successfully advance projects. Organizations were
also asked to describe their history with CII, FEP practices and FEP tools. Below
are findings the author gathered from the responses:
• Eleven of the 12 organizations interviewed have had a long-standing
relationship with the Construction Industry Institute. One owner company
recently became a member of the CII community and recently started to
use the PDRI tools. This owner organization is so convinced of the
benefits of CII practices and tools that it heavily uses the PDRI tool to
assess its projects.
• All of the organizations already had a front end planning process in place
and all had integrated at least one CII FEP tool within the process. The
most popular tool was the PDRI.
• The process in which a CII tool was used mainly depended on the
organization type. Public owners tend to implement mid to late design
phase. Private owners plan in the conceptualization phase. Contractors
usually plan once awarded the work.
• Organizational planning responsibility varied. Six organizations (5 owners
and 1 contractor) have a group solely responsible for the planning
integration within the entire organization. The remaining
54
organizations (2 owners and 4 contractors) place the planning
responsibility on the individual department groups.
• Most importantly, all of the organizations have a formal planning process
for projects. Depending on the size of the project some of the front end
planning tools were mandatory and at other times optional.
• Half of the interviewees mentioned that a successful FEP process is hard
to implement an effective FEP process without organizational “buy-in”.
Commitment from the organization’s leadership to project team members
is vital to effective FEP.
• Nine of the 12 organizations mentioned that people’s unwillingness to
plan was the most common barrier to an effective planning process within
the organization. Interviewees said that people’s tendency to start a project
without identifying the risks at the beginning of the project was a great
barrier. Even organizations with a gated process and mandatory tool
implementation said people’s unwillingness to plan in the beginning of the
project is a barrier. However, because of the embedded mandatory policies
this problem is reduced.
Below are specific quotes from interviewees regarding their FEP processes.
• “We’re definitely winning work because of our successful front end planning process.” (Organization E).
• “The front end planning process helps us build with the end in mind.”
(Organization E).
• “The front end planning process helps us answer the questions, is the process correct; are we using the right tools; and do we have the right people? ” (Organization L).
55
From the answers, it seems that the respondents value of front end
planning process and their relationship with the CII community. The
organizations also find value in the CII FEP tools because the tools are heavily
used in the planning process. Even though the planning process structures vary
among the organizations, there are still strong formal processes in place. The
organizations interviewed were evenly distributed between an organizational and
departmental approach. According to the interviewees, since the organizational
approach is centralized, the planning process is more efficient. There is less
redundancy since the same process and tools are used for the entire organizations.
However, it was mentioned that caution must be taken to limit bureaucracy in the
centralized approach. Even though the responsibility of project planning also
varies there are checks and balances within the organizations. Within the front
end planning process, organizations found the most common barrier was the
unwillingness of people to plan. However, even with the barriers, some of the
benefits, as stated from the organization quotes, are additional work, clear project
vision and accurate use of project resources.
5.1.2. Organization FEP Tools
The second topic in the interview went more in-depth into the CII and
non-CII tools organizations used in their processes. The line of questioning was
intended to collect information about the specific uses of the tools. Below are
highlights of the responses.
• Seven of the organizations have the PDRI tools embedded within the
formal FEP processes (5 Owners and 2 Contractors). Many
56
organizations used the PDRI tools as a checklist prior to and during the
project planning phases.
• In the FEP process, all of the organizations had the project manager or
engineer involved when using the tools in the planning stages of a project.
All organizations recognized that it was essential to have the project
manager/engineer involved in planning. After a project was reviewed, the
project FEP analysis was passed along to the upper manager for approval.
• Eight of 12 organizations that required the PDRI in its planning process
required projects to have certain scores before moving along to the next
planning stage. This is also known as a gated process and is mainly
employed by owner organizations.
• The lack of CII tools experience was the most mentioned barrier by the
interviewees for this specific topic. Organizations that make CII tools
optional mainly experienced this barrier because standardized training is
not in place.
The following are quotes by interviewees related to this topic.
• “The PDRI is not about the score, it’s about the process of scope definition” (Organization J)
• “The tools are a great way to manage the young talent in our
organization” (Organization C)
• “Even though the tool process is informal, it is invaluable.” (Organization F)
For the organizations interviewed, FEP tools are not only used because of
the requirements in place. The front end planning tools are used to provide a
57
proven way to assess projects through detailed scope definition. Also, the tools
provide a method to manage or train talent within an organization. If an
organization can provide proper training on the tools, the process can be
invaluable.
5.1.3. Succession Planning
During the interviews the topic of succession planning revealed the
biggest vulnerability for organizations from the author’s perspective. Succession
planning is a focus on ensuring continuity of planning over a long period of time,
despite turnover of personnel. The answers to the questions give an indication of
the organization’s strength in the front end planning process. Some companies
recognize that even though they currently have strong practices in place, a small
change in personnel could dramatically change the success of their FEP process.
Below is an overview of the common responses to succession planning topic in
the interview.
• Five interviewees have a vital person in their organization who is the
mainly responsible for the success of the FEP process. Interviewees
recognize that individual champions can be a liability since all the
knowledge resides with one person.
• Two organizations detailed how leadership changes affect the direction of
a FEP process. Some times with a change in organizational leadership,
new planning initiatives are introduced. These two organizations
mentioned that in the past, their organizations had moved away from CII
tools within the FEP process and new non-CII planning tools were
58
used mainly due to a change in leadership.
• Seven organizations have the process deeply embedded within their
cultures and therefore if key personnel leave, the FEP strategy would
continue. Having the FEP process deeply embedded within an
organization did not ensure a problem free implementation process. The
deeply embedded process only guaranteed minimal changes if someone
were to leave the organization.
• All of the organizations admitted that the front end planning training
always needs improvement to ensure the process strength. Without the
proper training an organization’s potential successes are sometimes
limited.
Two owner organizations made the following statements regarding succession
planning:
• “There used to be just one champion but now the process is engrained within the department.” (Organization B)
• “More facilitators are needed in house to ensure the strength of the
process. This year our goal is to have more training." (Organization J) In order for an organization to continue its effective planning process after
the exit of key personal, its FEP process must become culturally embedded. When
the success of a FEP process is heavily dependent on a few key individuals, an
organization must strengthen its planning process by involving others.
For example, one organization has a planning process group or steering
committee to provide extensive support and training on the organization’s
59
planning process and tools. This steering committee “owns” the process, and
because it is made up of senior personnel continuity is maintained and project
teams are compelled to follow the process.
5.1.4. Organization Alliances
Front end planning during a project alliance is extremely crucial to a
successful project. For this research purpose, the specific partner relationships in
an alliance are owner/contractor and contractor/contractor. Organizations
mentioned that the strength of the relationship and their partner’s front end
planning process many times determine the success of a project. The following
are responses to the topic of alliances.
• All organizations stressed the importance of effective communication
during FEP within an alliance.
• Six of the 12 organizations (5 contractors and 1 owner) admitted to
planning “in the closet” without the knowledge of the project partner.
• One contractor organization (Organization H) always completes its
own planning strategy and process no matter the agreement or
participation of the client. This organization willingly admitted to
completing a PDRI assessment many times without the knowledge of
the project partner. This organization wanted to mitigate risks it
thought its partners had overlooked.
• One contractor (Organization E) talked about a partner relationship
with another CII member that is fully engaged in the front end
60
planning process. This company mentioned that working with another
CII member makes it easy to communicate because both organizations
understand the importance of proper scope definition and successful
team alignment. This interviewee said that, “being a CII member in a
alliance is a competitive advantage”.
Below is another specific organization quote related to alliances.
• “Trust is absolutely necessary when planning in a alliance.” (Organization F)
In regards to alliances in the FEP process, effective communication is
essential. Also, even in an alliance, an organization must still perform its own due
diligence. From the interview responses, organizations must not only perform
front end planning with their partners, they also perform a project assessment on
their own to ensure all project aspects are addressed.
5.1.5. FEP Success Example
In the structured interview process, the author asked the interviewees if
they could provide an example that showed that the respective FEP processes are
effective. During the 12 interviews, all of the interviewees indicated that at one
time or another the FEP process and tools helped its organization select better
projects and assemble successful teams. Below is a specific example from the
interviewee of an owner organization (Organization G) that demonstrates the
value of an effective FEP process and the PDRI tool.
According to the interviewee, Organization G was evaluating a potential
project and had recently completed a project assessment. Within its front end
61
planning process, which includes the PDRI-Industrial, the organization had found
that it could not go ahead with the project because of the extremely high risks.
The interviewee said that another company had taken on the project that
Organization G rejected. In the end, according to the manager at this owner
organization, “the project was a disaster!” Most importantly, the manager said
the following about the FEP process.
• “It’s okay when a project does not advance to the building stage. In fact you know that the process is working when the indicators tell you it’s not the best project for your company.”
To conclude, the organizations interviewed, found value in their respected
FEP processes. All interviewees recognized that the FEP process has helped and
continues to help their organizations select winning projects. One organization
specifically said that the process is very valuable when potential projects are
shelved due to high risks.
5.1.6. Beneficial FEP Aspects
To conclude the structured interview, the author asked interviewees if
there were any final beneficial aspects they would like to share. Due to time
constraints, not every interviewee responded to the question.
Some beneficial aspects shared ranged from the need of increased training
to improved communication within the project team. One owner mentioned that
the likelihood of project success is increase by having a thorough FEP process. A
public owner mentioned that the PDRI holds team members in the project
planning phase accountable. A contractor said that a strong process makes the
team think about the project “step by step”. An owner in the oil and gas
62
industry mentioned that the FEP process is about getting the right team in place
within the appropriate time.
Below are specific responses to the question.
• “The PDRI has been great for the organization.” (Organization K)
• “The FEP process makes sure that the project team succeeds.” (Organization G)
A conclusion of the analysis and selected quotes is that the benefits of a
strong front end planning process are many. A strong FEP process helps to build
aligned teams by better training, holds team members accountable and increases
the likelihood of success.
5.2. Summary
In the end, the author interviewed 12 CII member organizations. The
participating organizations shared their experiences on the front end planning
process, the tools in the process; succession planning and planning within
alliances. Using the pattern-matching technique, the author identified that a
number of important aspects when implementing a FEP process. In the end, CII
organizations find value in the FEP tools within their formalized planning
processes.
63
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Conclusions
Over the last twenty years, CII research has shown the value of an
effective front end planning process in the construction industry. The past
research has not only provided guidance on the FEP process but has also
produced tools that help better define project scope and build stronger teams. The
problem statement at the beginning of this research is the lack of data of the use
on CII front end planning tools and the implementation of the planning process.
The objectives of this research investigation were to summarize research
on the CII front end planning process, gather more data on the usage of front end
planning tools and conduct in-depth interviews regarding planning
implementation strategies. The purpose of the objectives is to show that CII
organizations continue to find value in the FEP tools by the increase usage of
tools when comparing usage data of 2011 and 2004.
In the spring of 2011, the author sent a survey to the 116 CII members.
Fifty-nine organizations responded (over 50 percent) to the 2011 front end
planning survey. The 59 organizations included 32 owners and 27 contractors. Of
the 59 organization respondents, 46 organizations used at least one CII planning
tool or 78 percent of the respondent population. Compared to the 2004 results,
there were 11 less respondents but one more organization that used at least one
tool (the usage percentage had increase form 61 percent to 78 percent). From the
data analysis, the organizations that use tools, reported that the effect of the tools
were overall very positive. Organizations mainly used the tools on
64
selected projects. There were a few organizations that used the tools on all
projects. The average usage years of the PDRI for Industrial tool was 5.0 years
and 4.7 years for the PRDI for Building tool. Compared to the 2004 survey, the
years of usage for the PRDI for Industrial tool was 0.7 years higher and 2.0 years
higher for the PRDI for Building tool.
Based on the 2011 data gathered, the usage of front end planning tools is
slightly higher than that in 2004. Although there are sample limitations, the author
believes that there are probably many more organizations in the CII community
that are effectively using front end planning tools within their processes. The
percentage of use was found to be greater in 2011 compared to 2004. This usage
increased supports the hypothesis that through increased tool usage, organizations
continue to find value in the FEP tools.
The author also interviewed 12 CII organizations. The in-depth interviews
were used to further research the questions posed in the short front end planning
survey. The topics covered in the interviews were the organizations planning
process, tool usage, succession planning and alliances. All of the organizations
interviewed had structured planning processes in place. Of the 12 organizations,
all mentioned using the PDRI tool. Organizations either used the tools as is or had
customized the FEP tool to fit the organizational needs. Regarding the topic of
succession planning, most of the organizations mentioned that more training on
the planning process tools is always needed. About half of the organization
admitted that having a single “FEP Champion” was a risky strategy in terms of
continuity.
65
This was particularly expressed in interviews with organizations that did not
mandate the use of FEP tools in the planning process. Of the organizations
interviewed all mentioned that effective communication is essential within the
alliance process. The organizations also mentioned benefits of an effective front
end planning process such as talent development, successful project teams and an
increase probability of project success.
6.2. Recommendations
The research presented in this document supports the benefits of the front
end planning process in the construction industry. The front end planning research
over the last 20 years along with the findings of this current research effort are
documented in this report. The purpose of the research was to gather information
on the use of CII tools and the challenges faced during the process. This
document presents research that can help construction organizations better
implement their planning processes.
The author recommends more frequent data collection efforts on the use of
front end planning tools. The seven-year span between the 2004 and 2011 was
long. Future data analysis should separately examine organizations that completed
that have completed previous surveys compared to those that have not. The author
also recommends that CII create an informal learning and training opportunity for
organizations not familiar with the tools to seek help from others. An informal
community, perhaps the current FEP Community of Practice (COP), could be
strengthen so that organizations could share experiences and advice on ways to
integrate the front end planning tools.
66
REFERENCES
Bingham, E., Gibson Jr., G. E., & Stogner, R. (2011). Development Of The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) For Infrastructure Projects -Research Report 268-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Cho, C. S., Furman, J. C., & Gibson, G. E. (1999). Development of the Project
Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Building Projects. Resource Report 155-11.Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Cho, C.-S., & Gibson, G. E. (2001). Building Project Scope Definition Using
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI). ACSE Journal of Architectural Engineering, 7 (4), 115-125.
The Construction Industry Institute. 1994. Pre-Project Planning: Beginning a
Project the Right Way. Special Publication 39-1. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute .1995. Pre-Project Planning Handbook.
Special Publication 39-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 1996. The Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI) Industrial Projects. Implementation Resource 113-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 1997a. Alignment During Pre-Project
Planning. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 1997b. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and
Alignment. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 1999. PDRI, The Project Definition Rating
Index (PDRI), Building Projects. Research Summary. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2005. Alignment During Pre-Project
Planning, 2nd Edition. Implementation Resource 113-3. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
67
The Construction Industry Institute. 2006a. Data Analysis in Support of Front End Planning Implementation. Research Report 213-11. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2006b. Front End Planning: Break the Rules,
Pay the Price. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2006c. Front End Planning Toolkit.
Implementation Resource 213-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2006d. PDRI, Project Definition Ration Index
for Building Projects 2nd Edition. Implementation Resource 155-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2006e. Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI), Industrial Projects 2nd Edition. Implementation Resource 113-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2009. Front End Planning for Renovation and
Revamp Projects: An Overview. Research Summary 242-1. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2009. Front End Planning of Renovation and
Revamp Projects. Implementation Resource 242-2, Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2010. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index
- Infrastructure Projects. Implementation Resource, 268-2. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute. 2011a. CII Best Practices. (C. Webmaster,
Editor) Retrieved 12 27, 2011, from Construction Industry Institute: https://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/bp.cfm?section=aboutcii#01-02
The Construction Industry Institute. 2011b. Development of the Project Definition
Rating Index (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects - Research Report. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
68
Dumont, P. R., Gibson, G. E., & Fish, J. R. 1997. Scope Management Using the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI). ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering , 13 (5), 54-60.
Federal Facilities Council. 2003. Starting Smart: Key Practices for Developing
Scope of Work for Facility Projects. Technical Report 146, Washington, D.C.
Gibson, G. E., Kaczmarowski, J., & Lore, H. 1995. Pre-Project Planning Process
for Capital Facilities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 121 (3), 312-813.
Gibson, G. E., Ray, M. P., & Lyons, W. A. 2006. Data Analysis in Support of
Front End Planning Implementation. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
Howard, S. L., Gibson, Jr. , G. E., Whittington, D. A., & Cui, Q. 2009. Analysis
Supporting Front End Planning For Renovation and Revamp Projects, Part 1. Research Report. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
Irons, K. T., & Gibson, G. E. 2006. Case Study Analysis in Support of Front End
Planning Implementation. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
Wang, Y. (2002). Project Risk Management Using Project Definition Rating
Index (PDRI). Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (2nd Edition ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
69
APPENDIX A
RESEARCH TEAM 268 MEMBERS
70
Phase I: Development of PDRI for Infrastructure
(2008-2010)
Mahir Aydin Ontario Power Generation
Evan Bingham Arizona State University
Eskil E. Carlsson CSA Group
Paul Mickey Collins Pathfinder
Don Cooley CH2M HILL
Brian Foy Burns & McDonnell
Dennis W. Gardner Mustang
G. Edward Gibson, Jr. Arizona State University
David R. Halicks Tennessee Valley Authority
Tim Hoopengarner JMJ Associates
Chad Kendrick Southern Company
Steve Laskowski Fluor Corporation
Robert Mitrocsak Architect of the Capitol
Jim Palmer Hill International
Richard Payne Jacobs
Scott Penrod Walbridge
Tim Podesta BP America, Inc.
Richard Rye Hill International
Rick Stogner University of Alabama
James B. Vicknair WorleyParsons
71
Phase II
Implementation Survey and Integration of Tools (2011-2012)
Roberta Bosfield Arizona State University
Kenneth J. Bryson, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Eskil E. Carlsson, Co-Chair CSA Group
Don Cooley CH2M HILL
Alfred Cypress U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
John R. Fish Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. / S&B Engineers & Constructors, LLC
Brian Foy Burns & McDonnell
G. Edward Gibson, Jr. Arizona State University
David R. Halicks Tennessee Valley Authority
Steve Laskowski Fluor Corporation
Sandra MacGillivray Coreworx Inc.
Robert Mitrocsak Architect of the Capitol
Scott Penrod Walbridge
Tim Podesta, Co-Chair BP America, Inc.
G. Richard Scott ConocoPhillips
James B. Vicknair WorleyParsons
Brian H. Werle Jacobs
James Yuengert Smithsonian Institution
72
APPENDIX B
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE (CII) ORGANIZATIONS
73
2011 FEP Survey Sample Population
CII Owner Organizations (56)
Abbott* Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.* Ameren Corporation American Transmission Company LLC Anheuser-Busch InBev* Aramco Services Company* Archer Daniels Midland Company Architect of the Capitol Barrick Gold Corporation BP America, Inc.* Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Cameco Corporation Cargill, Inc.* Chevron* CITGO Petroleum Corporation ConocoPhillips* DTE Energy DuPont* Eastman Chemical Company* Ecopetrol S.A. Eli Lilly and Company* Eskom Holdings Limited ExxonMobil Corporation General Electric Company GlaxoSmithKline Hovensa, LLC International Paper* The Dow Chemical Company* Irving Oil Limited Kaiser Permanente Kinross Gold Corporation Koch Industries, Inc.
LyondellBasell Marathon Oil Corporation National Aeronautics & Space Administration NOVA Chemicals Corporation Occidental Petroleum Corporation Ontario Power Generation* Petroleo Brasileiro S/A – Petrobras* Praxair, Inc. SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Sasol Technology Shell Global Solutions US Inc.* Smithsonian Institution* Southern Company Statoil ASA Teck Resources Limited Tennessee Valley Authority* The Procter & Gamble Company* TransCanada Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL U.S. Department of Energy* U.S. Department of Health & Human Services* U.S. Department of State* U.S. General Services Administration *Participated in 2004 Survey
74
CII Contractor Organizations (60)
Alstom Power Inc.* AMEC, Inc. Apex Engineering, Inc. AZCO INC. Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Bateman Engineering N.V. Bechtel Group, Inc. Bentley Systems Inc. BIS Frucon Industrial Services Inc. Black & Veatch Burns & McDonnell* CB&I* CCC Group, Inc.* CDI Engineering Solutions* CH2M HILL* Coreworx Inc. CSA Group* Day & Zimmermann* Dresser-Rand Company* Emerson Process Management eProject Management, LLC Faithful+Gould Flad & Associates Flint Energy Services Ltd. Fluor Corporation* Foster Wheeler USA Corporation Grinaker-LTA/E+PC Gross Mechanical Contractors, Inc. GS Engineering & Construction Corporation Hargrove Engineers + Constructors Hilti Corporation Industrial Contractors, Inc. Innovative Design Engineering Associates, Inc. Jacobs JMJ Associates LLP JV Driver Projects Inc. KBR Kvaerner North American* Construction, Inc. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc. M. A. Mortenson Company
McDermott International, Inc. Midwest Steel, Inc. Mustang* Oracle USA, Inc. Parsons Pathfinder LLC Quality Execution, Inc. S&B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.* Siemens Energy, Inc. SNC-Lavalin Inc. SOG - Óleo e Gás S/A - SETAL Technip The Shaw Group Inc. URS Corporation Victaulic Company Walbridge* Wanzek Construction, Inc. WorleyParsons* Zachry Holdings, Inc.* Zurich
* Participated in 2004 Survey
75
APPENDIX C
FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY
76
Front End Planning Survey, 2 10 12 We are collecting data in this short survey to include in a presentation at the CII Annual Conference in summer 2012; Our intent is to understand the extent of usage and implementation of Front End Planning tools, including the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) within the CII membership. Please take a few moments to answer the following questions and then e-mail or fax it back to Dr. Gibson. We will maintain strict confidentiality of your answers. Thank you for taking the time to fill this out. Company: ____________________ Name: ____________________ Title: ____________________ Phone: ____________________ Email: ____________________ Does your company use: (mark all that apply) See details on attached page 1) PDRI for Industrial Projects ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable 2) PDRI for Building Projects ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable 3) PDRI for Infrastructure Projects ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable 4) Alignment Thermometer ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable 5) Front End Planning Toolkit ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable 6) Shutdown/Turnaround Alignment Review (STAR) ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable If you checked No or Not Applicable to questions 1) through 6), please answer only the following question and thank you for your time, otherwise, complete the applicable sections below. 7) Comments about why you are NOT using any of these front end planning tools (e.g., haven’t heard about it, use another tool, doesn’t fit with our business model, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 8) Has the PDRI been incorporated as part of your organizational (corporate) planning
process for budgetary approvals of capital facilities? ______ Yes _____No Comments about its usage: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please turn over ==>
77
9) PDRI for Industrial Projects (CII Implementation Resource 113-2)—if applicable a. Usage on Projects: ___ All ___ Some ___ Few or Select b. Typical Size of Projects that PDRI is used on (pick all that apply):
___ (> $20 million) ___ ($5-20 million) ___ ($1-5 million) ___ ( <$1 million) c. Approximately how many years has your company been using the PDRI for Industrial
Projects? _____ d. Effect of PDRI usage on front end planning effectiveness at your organizations? ___ Positive ___ Negative ___ None or Little 10) PDRI for Building Projects (CII Implementation Resource 155-2)—if applicable. a. Usage on Projects: ___ All ___ Some ___ Few or Select b. Typical Size of Projects that PDRI is used on (pick all that apply):
___ (> $20 million) ___ ($5-20 million) ___ ($1-5 million) ___ ( <$1 million) c. Approximately how many years has your company been using the PDRI for Building
Projects? _____ years d. Effect of PDRI usage on front end planning effectiveness in your organization? ___ Positive ___ Negative ___ None or Little 11) PDRI for Infrastructure Projects (CII Implementation Resource 268-2)—if applicable. a. Usage on Projects: ___ All ___ Some ___ Few or Select b. Typical Size of Projects that PDRI is used on (pick all that apply):
___ (> $20 million) ___ ($5-20 million) ___ ($1-5 million) ___ ( <$1 million) c. Effect of PDRI usage on front end planning effectiveness in your organization? ___ Positive ___ Negative ___ None or Little
Please turn over ==>
78
12) Please check all that apply—the PDRI is used: ___More than once on most projects ___As a checklist in early project development ___With the help of a facilitator who is outside the project team ___In a modified form for small or unusual projects ___In conjunction with other front end planning measurement methods (i.e., IPA, internal
measures, etc.) ___As a means of measuring or benchmarking front end planning process performance ___As an audit tool ___As a “gate” check before moving to the next project phase ___To help capture lessons-learned 13) Please check all that apply—Barriers that prevent you from using CII front end planning tools: ___Resources, including time or money ___Knowledge or understanding, not familiar ___Lack of trained facilitators ___Other existing processes or alternate methods for planning ___Lack of management commitment ___Not convinced these tools are of value ___Bad experience in the past ___Not required by corporate policy or clients ___Tools are not applicable to our business model ___Tools are too cumbersome ___Other:_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments: (success stories, why you don’t like these tools, willing to share case studies, areas needed for improvement, additional tools needed, shared quotes and so forth) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Again, Thank you very much! Please return to Edd Gibson at [email protected] or Roberta Bosfield at [email protected]
Or fax it to Edd Gibson at 480-965-1769. If you need more information about any of these tools, please contact us.
79
APPENDIX D
IN DEPTH INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT
80
FEP Survey Interview/Case Study Questionnaire, RT268 9 2011 In-depth follow-up questions to the FEP survey given in March 2011. The questions are for companies who expressed interest in sharing success stories with Research Team 268. Organization/Name: ____________________ Phone #: ____________________ Position Title: ____________________ Date & Time: ____________________ Interview Script: 1) Introduction (7.5 Minutes)
a. Who we are and what we are doing i. Thanks for meeting with us today. Before we get started we want to give
some more insight as to who we are in the CII community. Our team, RT268, is continuing Front End Planning (FEP) research within the CII community. There are 19 members on the team and Dr. Edd Gibson is the academic chair. Dr. Gibson has been on the front line of FEP research and is widely known for creating the PDRI trilogy.
b. Let the CII member know that the interview is a follow-up to the FEP survey
completed earlier this year. i. This past summer your organization completed the brief survey regarding
your organization’s FEP process. Our research team is following up with a telephone interview regarding your organization’s responses. We will like to collect more detailed information on the specific tools used, strategies employed and common barriers faced in the FEP process. Also after the telephone interviews our research team will take a deeper look at 3-5 organizations for case studies. This would entail perhaps a site visit or a series of additional interviews with others.
c. Interview Structure i. The interview we will cover the topics you received prior to this call. Our
hope is to stay true to the list in order to complete the interview within the one-hour time frame.
d. Interview is confidential i. Most importantly before we start the interview we want to read to you the
confidentiality clause: 1. Thank you for agreeing to participate with RT268 in this in depth
interview regarding FEP within your organization. Your input will be a valuable piece of the process to complete our CII research goals. We promise that individual and organization names will not be included in the final research publication. Also, anything said in the interview will not be disclosed. Finally upon completion of research, we will share the results in our final publication.
2. In order to continue with the interview, please indicated that you understand the clause and give permission to continue. Company Name Permission to Continue:
YES NO
81
2) Topic: Organization FEP Process Now onto the first interview topic. The following questions will help us get an understanding of your organization’s history with CII FEP tools and your organization’s overall process.
a. Please describe your organization’s front end planning history with CII tools.
i. When did you start? b. Was there a front-end planning process in place when you arrived at your
organization? i. Did you restart the process?
c. Can you walk through your organization’s front-end planning process? d. How many people are involved in maintaining the planning process? e. What levels are involved in your organization’s planning process? (executives,
senior managers, etc.) f. At what project stage(s) does your organization implement its plan?
i. Different for owners and contractors g. Will you be willing to share your FEP process? If not can you describe your
process? *** (what are we expecting?) i. Is there gated planning process
ii. Who is involved in tracking the gated phases? iii. What are the requirements to advancing in the process? (management
review, signoff, etc.) h. What specific barriers to using CII tools do you see in your organization? i. Can you give examples of the benefits of using CII tools with your organization?
3) Topic: FEP Tools The next section of the interview will cover specific CII and non-CII tools your organization uses. We will also ask about the benefits to using the tools.
a. Please describe what CII tools your organization currently uses. b. Does your organization use FEP tools besides CII FEP tools?
i. What are they? c. What other tools is most beneficial to your organization? d. Please describe how the tools are used in your organization? (mandatory
checklist, audit tool, etc.) e. How have the tools added value to your organization? How do you measure this
value? (Higher profits, more defined project scope, less change orders etc.) i. Do you have data for the tool use?
ii. Do you have a matrix to track the value added? iii. How do you measure the effectiveness of the FEP tools? iv. How have you been able to maintain FEP tools in your organization
structure? v. Do you see any threats that might eliminate tools within your organization
f. How do others in your organization feel about the FEP tools? 4) Topic: Succession Planning Continuing the topic of the last two questions, we would like to ask about the succession planning for your organization’s FEP process.
a. Is there one main front-end planning “champion” in your organization?
i. Is there a leadership committee? b. What would happen is this person/committee leaves your organization?
82
c. Does your organization have a succession strategy for front end planning to continue if this person leaves?
5) Topic: FEP Project Examples a. Can you give a specific project example of how front-end planning has helped
your organization? b. How well do you think your organization would fare if it did not have a strong
front-end planning strategy? 6) Alliances/Partnerships Sometimes it is difficult to adhere to your organization’s FEP process within a partnership. The next few questions address this predicament.
a. Do you use FEP tools in a joint venture? b. How do you use the tools with organizations that do not have a FEP process? (Do
you use it in the closet) 7) Most Important FEP Aspects The following question is the last of the interview.
a. Looking at the FEP process, in your opinion what is the most important aspect to
you and your organization?
8) Close Out/Thank You (7.5 Minutes) Thanks for participating the interview. We know it’s sometimes difficult to make time for activities such as these. We truly appreciated your organization’s participation not only in this interview but also in the brief survey earlier this year. Before we hang up, if needed, would your organization be willing to talk more in depth?
83
APPENDIX E
FRONT END PLANNING SURVEY ORGANIZATIONS
84
Organizations That Completed 2011 FEP Survey
CII Owner Organizations (32)
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Ameren Corporation
Anheuser-Busch InBev
Aramco Services Company
Architect of the Capitol
BP America, Inc.
Cargill, Inc.
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
DuPont
Eastman Chemical Company
Eli Lilly and Company
International Paper
Irving Oil Limited
Kaiser Permanente
LyondellBasell
Ontario Power Generation
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A – Petrobras
SABIC – Saudi Basic Industries
Corporation
Sasol Technology
Shell Global Solutions US Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Southern Company
Statoil ASA
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Dow Chemical Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
TransCanada Corporation
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services
U.S. Department of State
85
CII Contractor Organizations (27)
Alstom Power Inc.
Bateman Engineering N.V.
Burns & McDonnell
CB&I
CCC Group, Inc.
CDI Engineering Solutions
CH2M Hill
Coreworx Inc.
CSA Group
Day & Zimmermann
Dresser-Rand Company
Fluor Corporation
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
GS Engineering & Construction
Corporation
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Kvaerner North American
Construction, Inc.
Lauren Engineers & Constructors,
Inc.
Mustang
Pathfinder LLC
Quality Execution, Inc.
S&B Engineers and Constructors,
Ltd.
Siemens Energy, Inc.
SNC-Lavalin Inc.
URS Corporation
Walbridge
WorleyParsons
Zachry Holdings, Inc.